Logo: to the web site of the Swedish Defence University

The way the Rome Statute deals with mistakes in armed conflicts is vague, the content of the mistake of fact provision has yet to be determined by the court. Some suggest that both objective and subjective elements exist to assess if a mistake can lead the way to the exclusion of criminal responsibility, while others suggest only a subjective element is required. This text suggests a synthesis between these concepts predicated on that mistake of fact is a provision qualifying the mental element. This qualification comes in the form of what is in the sense of the law of armed conflict reasonable to do for the actor at the specific circumstances of the inquiry. What is reasonable to do in the commission of a mistake mirrors the obligations under Additional Protocol 1 57, and boils down to certain factual obligations. One way of applying these factual obligations is through the ‘reasonable military commander’, yet the concept has some major difficulties in clearly reflecting the contents of these factual obligations on account of its foundation and construction. Superior application of these obligations is direct and ultimately what this text suggests.